Comparing the present crop of hopefuls to who's like Ike may prove fruitful. Off the top of my head, I would choose, subject to revision, Gen. Wesley Clark, for these reasons: he's a bright military mind with meaningful experience in the diplomatic skills needed to keep a coalition together. And, like Eisenhower, certainly smart enough to figure out what is an optimal course given the reality of a situation, and a man wwith broad enough shoulders to bear the burden of the path he leads the country into. That said, deferring, largely, to his foreign policy and military thinkers, Bill Clinton has both the drive and the talent to lead with a "charm offensive" in the Muslim world, packaged irrevocably with substantive and possibly synthesizing the best of the opposing cultures. The point is -- and I'm fully open to discussion on any legitimate "candidate" (read "set of skills") -- that both military acumen and the highest degree of statesmanship are now required. Given this proposed listing of historical figures, it is obvious to me at least that the present incumbent wouldn't even make it onto "the extreme 'long list.'" His failure at military planning is painfully obvious for all to see in Iraq right now. His diplomatic botching is evident in Iran's surge, with really no stopping point immediately visible short of a nuclear-armed Muslim power poised to be our opponents in a new Cold War. The Israel-Palestine problem has exacerbated under his "hands off" ("laissez faire") policies, a may be at a new, critical phase with a Hamas-run or -influenced government squaring off against a right-wing (but less so than Likud) Israeli government. Further, Iran's and Syria's sphere of influence (can you "domino" anyone) seems on the brink of reestablishing itself in Lebanon, where the US-backed government is under siege and perhaps poised to fall. In my opinion, one of the great gifts of a democracy is that we get to speak the truth as we see it, and then have it seasoned by opposing views. While we are not going to replace Bush in the next two years, we can, perhaps, have a voice in events by setting a standard for him to live up to and a set of historically-derived traits for him to emulate so that he can begin to fulfill the awesome responsibility that rests on his shoulders. I am reminded, again, of the old Sixties protect song written by Pete Seeger called about a military commander who made his troops wade inexorably through a swelling river to the point where they began to drown. The refrain was, "And the big fool said to push on." Bush has the obligation to get this right, aided by whatever help and resources he can muster from this resourceful nation, regardless of personal embarrassment and the abandonment of "cherished" but inappropriate notions. In my view, it's a moral imperative ... if only Bush saw morality that way.
